memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Beta:Requests for adminship/2007 archive
For information on Wiki Administrators, see the Wikipedia article. To nominate someone, set up a new section for them and use their talk page to notify them. Self-nominations are allowed. After seven days, an admin will evaluate the supporting and opposing votes, the discussion, and the need for admins and determine whether the situation merits adminship. List of current admins See Project:Administrators. Current nominations for adminship Past nominations The doctor Accepted: '''Yes' The doctor has more than 3500 edits, but I'm nominating him because of his letter to the existing admins. He did as much about the problem as he could, so why not give him the power to do more? --Chops 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion :Agreed with Chops; (and with the Doctor). Initiative is sometimes half the battle, but his contributions seems to add up as well. - Lieutenant Ayala 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Support #--Chops 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC) #--8of5 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) #--Emperorkalan 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) #--Lieutenant Ayala 22:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose # 8of5 Accepted: Yes Self nomination, I've been around here a while and whilst I've been abit busy in the real world lately I am a frequent contributor and would love to be able to help in other areas. -- 8of5 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion Support #--The Doctor 01:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) #--Emperorkalan 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose # Turtletrekker Accepted: No I consider Turtletrekker one of this wiki's main contributors and someone who has a good idea of how the site runs and should be run so feel (s)he(?) would make an excellent member of admin. -- 8of5 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion I appreciate the nomination and support very much, but time considerations, which have severly cut into my wiki time, force me to decline. Thank you very much all the same. --Turtletrekker 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Support #--The Doctor 01:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC) #--Emperorkalan 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose Emperorkalan Accepted: Yes Emperor is one of our main contributors, a leave head, and a sensible person who knows how this place works. A perfect candidate. -- 8of5 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Discussion * Agreed. One of our best contributors, and can always be relied on to keep us on the straight and narrow. --The Doctor 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) :In the words of William Riker, "Yes, absolutely, I do indeed concur, wholeheartedly." --TimPendragon 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Gosh, a guy could get a swelled head around here :) I'll help where I can.--Emperorkalan 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Support #--8of5 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC) #--The Doctor 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) #--TimPendragon 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC) #--Sci 01:51 5 JAN 2006 UTC Oppose # Tough Little Ship Accepted: N/A I've been contributing here for around nine months and am enjoying myself immensely. I thought I may as well give some something back. I'm an administrator over at Memory Alpha already and consider myself to write good articles. -- Tough Little Ship 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Discussion Could you give us some examples of what you think are your best articles? --Seventy 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) :I recognize your name as that of a solid contributor from other wikias. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) TLS has been a rock-solid contributor since joining us last May, with hundreds of well-done contributions.--Emperorkalan 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Support # --Captain M.K.B. 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC) # --Emperorkalan 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) # --The Doctor 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) # --8of5 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Oppose #VortaExpert 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Captainmike Accepted: N/A Although Captainmike has only been here for a short time, I feel he has made some excellent changes to the wiki, and took great steps in improving the quality of our database. --The Doctor 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Discussion Thank you for the validation, Doc -- I keep trying to do my best getting this database looking nice and organized, and I appreciate you noticing. -- Captain M.K.B. 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC) :I held my tongue when the Doc made the nomination, I felt Mike was to new and didn't have a proper understanding of system here. He has since proven himself an excellent contributor and clearly wishes to build this wiki to it's full potential, an ideal candidate for adminship. -- 8of5 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::Hey, since you oppose me, guess what? I oppose you. Thanks, Vorta. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Not only do I support Mike's adminship, given his doggedness in demanding solid justification before topics were judged "irrelevant", I think his voice in the adminship is absolutely necessary.--Emperorkalan 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Support # --The Doctor 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) # --8of5 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) # --Emperorkalan 02:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Oppose #VortaExpert 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC) VortaExpert Accepted: N/A Discussion This user has only been active on the user for less than 24 hours. As an anonymous user, he disruptively vandalized pages, and was insulting of other members. While he has began to make some additions, these have included copied articles from Memory Alpha. At the moment I oppose, but if the user can become an excellent contributor, then I may change my vote. --The Doctor 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :What the Doc said, and it will take some truely supurb work to make up fr the mess caused by this user so far. -- 8of5 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :I have repeatedly heard people accuse me of vandalizing. What did i vandalize? Putting up information that you dont find correct is not vandalism.VortaExpert 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::The information you put up isn't the issue. Between 30 January and 9 February, the IP address (209.52.240.134) that you use was listed as blanking (vandalizing) several articles including, Jean-Luc Picard, James T. Kirk, Nanietta Bacco, Star Trek Nemesis, and 1966. That is why you (or the IP number) was banned twice. --The Doctor 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I did not blank any pages. This IP is in a busy office building so perhaps someone else was doing it. I did however post Vorta info many times which was deleted. But, I dont think that is vandalism. I sincerely wanted to expand on "underdeveloped" characters to make this a better Wiki.VortaExpert 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :That being the case, then I apologise. However, I stand by the point that you haven't been a part of the community for very long, and have yet to make any substantial additions to the wiki. When you do, I will happily support your request. --The Doctor 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I have tried to make substantial additions but my beginning contributions were all erased. You make it hard to develop this wiki when you erase things that are legitimate expansion of the universe.VortaExpert 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) :Gee we just keep going around-and-around with this don't we, I believe I'm beginning to feel quite dizzy. --The Doctor 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ::Your continued inability to understand why your contributions were removed only acts against you, you clearly do understand the purpose of this wiki. -- 8of5 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I am dissapointed you wont support me 8of5. I have always been good to you. :::::Actually, Vorta, putting up information that it is against the rules to put up is vandalism. I can't support that kind of behavior. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Thus far, Vorta has yet to contribute anything sourced to a licensed work, his only positive contributions within the scope of this wiki have been cut-and-pastes from Memory Alpha and what amounts to minor housekeeping. Furthermore, he's directly stated that his intent for having admin priviledges would be to change the purpose of this wiki. He's repeatedly accused multiple admins of vandalism and not understanding the very purpose of wikis, yet as of this morning he didn't even know how to sign his own posts. It is vitally important that new contributors be cut a lot of slack because this mode of communication is ripe for misunderstanding and miscommunication (just ask Stripey), but usually once two-way interaction starts the problems are alleviated and the new peoples' posts are increasingly "on board" with longer-time contributors. That has not been happening here, which only serves to fuel suspicions that what we're dealing with is not a "clueless newbie" but a deliberate crank-yanking disruptor. So enough of this "Vorta for admin" crap. What I'd like to see is a real, original, on-topic, and sourced contribution. And then another one. And another, and another. In fact, anything to indicate that the real question shouldn't be "Should VortaExpert be banned permanently?"--Emperorkalan 02:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :I agree with what everyone above has said. Especially 8of5 --Turtletrekker 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I understand you need hard copy sources for my additions. I will be finishing some short stories soon and will get the sources up online for you. Then i will quote them and add the material to the Wiki. Thanks.VortaExpert 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Do you understand what the word "licensed" means? Yes or no. Do you understand what the word "published" means? Yes or no. Do you understand that this wiki is intended to be an encyclopedia for canon and published, licensed Trek materials? Yes or no.--Emperorkalan 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) My understanding is this is a resource on the Star Trek Universe. My materials are part of the Star Trek Universe and its ever expanding depth. By adding my information to your WIKI, we take underdeveloped characters such as Leck, Pel, or Yelgrun; and make them into rich diverse characters. This is a benefit to all, and will provide endless enjoyment for our readers as they can build layer upon layer of character development within their imaginations.VortaExpert 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :I'll take that as No for all three questions. As you have been repeatedly told, this wiki has a clearly defined purpose, which isn't the one you've stated above. Somewhere out on the net there must be a place more in synch with what you hope to accomplish. But that place is not here. If you are unable or unwilling to contribute within our defined parameters, then your "contributions" will be removed (as most have been). Please stop wasting your time (and ours).--Emperorkalan 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Can you at least give me a legitimate reason why you want to keep things so narrow? What are you afraid of?VortaExpert 22:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Can you at least give me a legitimate and logical reason WHY you want to keep things narrowed to Paramount material ? What are you afraid of by people expanding the shortcomings of Paramount material?VortaExpert 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC) :WHY: We only recognize Paramount as a valid creator of Star Trek because they own the copyright. It is quite illegal to publish Star Trek for profit unless Paramount is the source. This is why we have limits. -- Captain M.K.B. 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC) It's a matter of "what do you include, what do you not include". Memory Alpha draws the line at "canon" and a few sources close to the production teams. We go for the next-easiest demarcation: canon plus licensed works. After that, you have tens of thousands of fan works, most operating in their own little bubbles. And there's plenty of places to do so (try Trekfiction.com). Can you offer "a legitimate and logical reason" why, out of all the places on the net that would welcome the sort of material you have to offer, you insist on coming here and change it around just to suit yourself? More to the point: you have made it abundantly clear you have no interest in contributing to this site according to its established rules, yet rather than move on to some place that has more in common with your interests, you insist on coming here and complaining when your posts are deleted for violating those rules. No matter what your motivations, that makes you a disruptor and a vandal. Since you won't cooperate and won't leave of your own volition, can you name one "legitimate and logical" reason why you shouldn't be banned.--Emperorkalan 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I have been a major star trek fan for my entire life. I have seen all episodes of all series, and all the movies. I have even read some of the books. I CARE. I just dont really agree with you only allowing paramount material. I do finally understand what you are trying to do here, I really do. But , why not expand on some of the shortcomings of Licensed works. Wouldnt that make things more fun. By ONLY being an ecyclopedia of liscenced works, you deprive the enjoyment of using our imaginations. this site can reach new heights if we are allowed to use our creative forces to make the Star Trek universe more comprensive. Threatening to ban me is not very nice by the way.VortaExpert 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :You do realize that if we opened this place up to our imaginations, it would irrevocable guarantee that, for legal reasons, none of our ideas ever get published. Over at the TrekBBS, the authors often mention to posters not to discuss any story ideas in the Lit forum because of the off-chance that somebody might someday come out of the woodwork and say, "Hey, you stole my idea!" The authors never frequent the fan-fiction boards for the same reason. If we went in then direction that you are suggesting, then the authors would be bound not to frequent here, and that runs counter to my reasons for even being here. --Turtletrekker 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Vorta, go back and read your own posts, and take a good look at the language you use: you always imply or blatantly accuse whomever you're talking to of "depriving" you, of not using their imaginations, of being "afraid", of censorship, of vandalism, of "promising" you something when they did no such thing, etc. ad nauseum. The reason you're not getting "nice" is because you're not giving it. And who's "depriving" anyone of "the use of their imaginations"? I have boxes of papers, notebooks, computer disks, etc. full of "the use of my imagination", and the Trek part of that alone has plenty of material from my old RPGs, from actual attempts to write scripts for TNG, dabbles in ship design, and more. And as neat and nifty as some of that stuff is, this is not the place for it, so I don't post it here. Finally, we're not the only game in town, you know. You keep acting like there are no other Trek fan sites, and that's just ridiculous. One of the reasons we keep the focus "narrow" here is because it's not narrow just about everywhere else. You want to develop the Ferengi and Vorta? Knock your self out, and post it someplace appropriate. But that place is not this place. Do you, at long last, understand that? Yes or no?--Emperorkalan 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) --- VortaExpert said: I just dont really agree with you only allowing paramount material. This really should be the end of this particular topic. If VE doesn't agree with the basic, long-established purpose of this wiki, then why would s/he be made an admin? --Seventy 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :That discussion was pretty much settled at the start. However, he's also made himself a candidate to be our first premanent ban, and that's what the continued discussion has really been about. Permanent bans aren't to be made lightly, so VE's being given plenty of rope. Whether he uses it to save himself or hang himself is up to him. (Though perhaps this should get moved elsewhere.)--Emperorkalan 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I am very saddened to hear you want to ban me. I never wanted things to come to that. i sincerely wanted to fill in shortcomings in Vorta and Ferengi characters so they were more developed. I didnt want to anger you all If you change your vote to admin acceptance, I promise you I will be a good admin. Please reconsider. Thank youVortaExpert 06:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I have changed the way I do things in order to conform to your policies. Now I think I am ready for admin status. Thank you in advance. VortaExpert 22:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC) :Dude, seriously, stop. You can't expect to be elected mayor of a city you just moved to, and you can't expect to be given admin status on a net community you've only participated in for a week (not even taking into account the way you've introduced yourself to the rest of the community). If you want to ask for admin status again after two or three months of behaving as a model citizen, then maybe some of us would be willing to reconsider. --Seventy 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I understand you want me around for a while before making me an admin. Please keep this open and I will await your acceptance after I have made more contributions. Thank you VortaExpert 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Support # VortaExpert 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Oppose # --The Doctor 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Provisionally) # --8of5 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC) # --Captain M.K.B. 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC) # --Emperorkalan 02:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC) # --Turtletrekker 04:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Data Noh Accepted: Yes Well they requested nomination but I had actually been considering it myself, Datanoh has been a member for a little while but only particularly active recently, however in that time they have done some good work and obviously have a clear idea of how the wiki should work. Discussion For ease of reference, I am male. :o) -- Data Noh 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC) :Lol, good good, never like to assume. --8of5 18:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I must admit I was a bit uncertain at first, not because of Data Noh, but because of the amount of admins we were gaining here. But with two permanently absent, my attention waning, and one seemingly not bothered, I can see that Data Noh would make a great addition to the other team who work tirelessly on the wiki, and see that his additions have been excellent and to a high standard. I praise thee sir! --Vote Saxon 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) :If two are truly "permanently absent," can that be reflected in the list of admins? I thought there were plenty, too, until I realized how long it had been since some of them had done anything. -- Data Noh 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Support # --8of5 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC) # --Darth Batrus 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC) # --Vote Saxon 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Oppose # Jdvelasc I would like to nominate myself for administrator. In the past, it would have been nice to be an administrator to immediately block a vandal (and in the future in case it happens again). Today, I would like to be an administrator to help prepare for the namespace change and to be able to do little clean up tasks that require deleting pages. Discussion Jdvelasc has always been helpful and his done great work in keeping the image categories and other related topics in order. He would make a great addition to the team, and hopefully stick around in the long run. Great work. --Dr. John Smith 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Support # --Dr. John Smith 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) # --8of5 10:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Oppose # Ultraice i would like to nomine my self, i want build up memory beta and protect from vandals. Do you agree?--Ultraice 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Discussion I am not familiar with this user's work, as he or she is fairly new and has not participated in many discussions or projects. I think that a user should spend some time working on articles, familiarizing themselves with our link naming conventions and namespace structure before taking on responsibility for administrative tasks. -- Captain MKB 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) :Ultraice, I am glad that you are interested in helping out - but I agree with Mike that you need much more experience here first. There is plenty that you can do to build up Memory Beta without becoming an admin and I would of course encourage you to do just that. --Jdvelasc 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) ::I'd agree. There are fairly few edits made, etc. If you want to go by that, I should've been an admin months ago! :) -- Sulfur 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Support Oppose #Captain MKB 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) #Jdvelasc 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC) #Sulfur 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)